AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an adoption proceeding where the Petitioners, Chris and Christine L. (Adoptive Parents), sought to terminate the parental rights of the Child’s biological mother (Mother) and adopt the Child. This proceeding was preceded by a guardianship proceeding where, after a referral to the Department of Children, Youth and Families, Mother agreed to place Child with Adoptive Parents while undertaking a family plan. The Adoptive Parents were appointed as temporary guardians, with the plan for Child to be transitioned back to Mother. However, relations between Mother and Adoptive Parents became strained, leading to various legal motions from both parties. Eventually, Adoptive Parents filed for termination of Mother’s parental rights and for adoption of Child (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Adoptive Parents: Argued for the termination of Mother's parental rights and the adoption of Child, presenting a list of twenty-one witnesses, including six doctors, and a Rule 11-706 NMRA expert for a bonding study (paras 7-8).
• Mother: Opposed Adoptive Parents’ petition for permanent guardianship and later the adoption, demonstrating uncertainty about legal procedures during the trial and eventually leaving the trial, stating she would appeal (paras 3-4, 9-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was required to advise the parent of the right to counsel set out in Section 32A-5-16(E) in an adoption proceeding where termination of parental rights is sought (para 12).
• Whether the failure of the district court to advise Mother of her right to counsel constituted fundamental error (para 12).

Disposition

• The final decree of adoption was reversed, and the case was remanded for a determination of whether Mother was indigent at the time the adoption proceeding was initiated (para 28).

Reasons

• The Court, per Cynthia A. Fry, J., with Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring, held that the district court's failure to advise Mother of her right to appointed counsel if she was indigent constituted fundamental error. The Court reasoned that both types of termination proceedings under the Children’s Code—those initiated under the abuse and neglect provisions and those under the adoption provisions—result in the permanent severance of the parent-child relationship. Thus, the appointment and assistance of counsel are equally important to an indigent parent in both scenarios. The Court concluded that a court must advise a parent in termination proceedings under the adoption provisions of the Children’s Code that he or she is entitled to have counsel appointed if indigency can be established. The Court found that the district court's failure to advise Mother of her right to counsel impacted her due process rights, constituting fundamental error. The Court rejected Adoptive Parents' arguments that the error was harmless or invited and remanded for a determination of Mother's indigency at the initiation of the adoption proceedings (paras 13-28).